Land Attachment, Intergenerational Differences and Land Transfer: Evidence from Sichuan Province, China
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
I appreciate the article at a high level. The literature is up-to-date and properly matched to the issues described in the text. The article is correctly written linguistically and grammatically.
Author Response
Thank you very much! We sincerely appreciate your affirmation.
Reviewer 2 Report
This paper presents a study on the impact of generational attachment to land and the possibility of changes in agricultural areas related to land flow. The survey was conducted among 540 rural households in Sichuan Province, and the factor analysis method was applied.
The paper is written correctly in terms of the structure of a scientific article. The abstract is written briefly and fully reflects the content of the research described in the article. The literature review is also positive, referring directly to the research subject and presenting mainly the current scientific achievements in this field. The methodology of the conducted research does not raise any objections.
Summing up: The work is a progress in the current knowledge. It is written in a good, clear scientific language supported by figures and diagrams as well as tables with data which are sufficiently legible. The aim of the work clearly defined and described both in the introduction, later developed in the study. The research element of the work is described in sufficient detail, which helps to interpret the results. In the reviewer's opinion the paper meets the requirements of the journal and may be published.
Author Response
we appreciate the suggestions of the editors and anonymous reviewers. Based on these suggestions, the paper has been revised carefully. Our specific responses to the editors' and reviewers’ comments are please see the attachment.
Author Response File: 
Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 3 Report
See attached
Comments for author File: Comments.pdf
Author Response
We appreciate the suggestions of the editors and anonymous reviewers. Based on these suggestions, the paper has been revised carefully. Our specific responses to the editors' and reviewers’ comments please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 4 Report
On the example of three counties in Sichuan province the research analyses an important economic issue of conditions of transfers of the agricultural land. The manuscript presents interesting results and provides some important policy recommendations. Nevertheless, I have several comments to the text that might be considered by Authors in the further publishing process.
ABSTRACT: this part seems to be too long. This refers to the point 3 especially. I think that one of the important element of presented analysis is definition of land attachment phenomenon that comprises of three dimensions as well as their quantitative analysis. I suggest putting this point here.
INTRODUCTION: Additional information on land policy in China is needed here. The term “Central Documents NO. 1” might be not clear for the international reader (line 41). What is that document? The same is with a document mentioned in lines 43-46. Are these two typical strategies? Are they followed by some policy instruments?
Authors write further in the text that “a large amount of cultivated land is still managed by small farmers in a decentralised manner, and the land transfer has not completely reversed the agricultural economic pattern dominated by small-scale farmers in China”. This statement seems to be not particularly clear and too concise. More complex picture of agricultural structures and land use in China should be considered here. We do not know why the concentration policy is needed. Who formulate such demands and on what basis. What are the economic, social and environmental consequences of current agricultural land fragmentation? On the contrary, what would be possible effects of desired concentration.
The Authors’ statements from the lines 69 to 75 are not backed up by any reference. The phrase pointing out that other studies “still have some problems” is unfortunate (line 72).
MATERIAL AND METHODS: The geographic coordinates in this part are unnecessary. I think that the context concerning the economy, agricultural sector, agricultural land use as well as rural population in Sichuan province and three selected counties is described too briefly. Putting here a more in-depth analysis is worth considering. Without providing any data, details and any reference a reader should take Authors’ assertions on the study “a good representativeness” with caution. The same refers to the situation in three selected counties (Jiajiang, Yuechi, Gao) and other sampling criteria that were used. I do not understand the statement that “…survey involved 3 cities…”.
The statements from the line 130 to 142 are Authors’ observations. There is no references here. I have also doubts that the assumption about the role of emotions in managing peoples actions should be attributed only to the sociology of emotions (the term “emotional sociologists” is unfortunate here”). What about economic anthropology, social psychology or behavioural economics? These research paradigms/subdisciplines are very important are seem to be much more suitable for presented analysis. As a point of reference they could offer useful interpretations as well.
In my opinion this part present also too straightforward explanation about possible differences between considered age generations of farmers. I am wonder whether this analysis was backed up by the literature of the subject. In this context, what are the real differences between distinguished farmers’ generations? The respective text’s passage contains only two references to the research (lines 166-190). Moreover, I think this part of the text focuses on psychological farmers’ motivations too much. To give more nuanced picture of their decisions concerning what to do with the land other determinants should be considered here as well. Maybe it the possible impact of these factors should cover the different levels (e.g. household, community, local, regional and central level). Amongst conditions affecting farmers’ decision on (not)transferring the agricultural land are many complex reasons impacting at different levels, namely: social (family dynamics, demographic characteristics), economic (farming profitability, sources of income), legal (law concerning land transactions, tax regulations), institutional (social insurance) and policy determinants (supporting instruments). This complex problem reflects a body of research concerning family and non-family farm succession al over the world (see for example Gasson and Errington 1993, Potter and Lobley 1996, Calus 2009, Lobley et al. 2012, Fisher and Burton 2014, Chiswell et al. 2018, Cavicchioli et al. 2019, May et al. 2019).
The statement in line 240 is unfinished.
RESULTS AND DISCUSSION: This section presents rather results than discusses. When Authors interpret their results (lines 294-300) they speculate (questionable arguments) and do not provide any references. I would suggest move discussions or opinions to the last part of the article.
CONCLUSIONS AND POLICY RECOMMENDATIONS: I suggest to combine these two parts together with the discussion section.
Author Response
we appreciate the suggestions of the editors and anonymous reviewers. Based on these suggestions, the paper has been revised carefully. Our specific responses to the editors' and reviewers’ comments please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Round 2
Reviewer 4 Report
Dear Authors, thank you for your replay. I do not have any additional comments to the modified version of the manuscript.
